Dear Editor,
In 2006 then President Bush hired Tony Snow as his Press Secretary. Snow was an objective critic of Bush’s administration. When the President was asked why he would bring into his fold a known detractor who publically criticized some of his policies, he made two memorable remarks. He said, “I asked him [Tony] about those comments and he said, ‘you should have heard what I said about the other guy.’” And, “I like his perspective, I like the perspective he brings to the job and I think you’re going to like it too.”
Bush was willing to work with those who were objectively critical of his policies. It is becoming more and more obvious that the last administration in Guyana allowed for no one in its fold with such qualities. Or if indeed they had, they did not make use of them.
The Sanata Textile Mills, the Marriott, the Berbice Bridge, the Amaila Falls, the airport expansion, the sole sourcing of drugs, the Spe-cialty Hospital, no Blacks as ambassadors, etc, all suggest that there were no critical objective voices in the previous administration to guide them to more transparent ways of investing the public’s money and engaging the citizenry.
Mr Ralph Ramkarran, Vice President Ramjattan and Prime Minister Nagamootoo all said they tried to be that critical objective voice, and claimed to have been sidelined and forced out. More recently, Mr Urling said that he too observed the stifling of that objective thinking within their fold. Only autocratic and dictatorial rulers shun objective criticisms but befriend yes-men and group-thinking cronies.
Editor, I am not highlighting the matter with President Bush or that of the previous administration flippantly. I am making an appeal to the embryonic, current administration. Take note.
Bush won his second term even with a badly damaged economy and a tumultuous Iraq War because it is believed he was prepared to bring into his bosom critical objectors of his policies. The PPP lost the government because it is believed they alienated and ostracized such thinkers, which led to behaviours inimical to the total development of the country.
It behooves this new administration to pay attention to the two stark realities and to determine which one will be its legacy.
Yours faithfully,
Pastor W P Jeffrey